Establishing News Confidence: A Qualitative Study of How People Use the News Media to Know the News-World
By: Stephen Ostertag
Tulane University
Abstract
This paper treats the meanings people associate with news outlets as important cultural resources that are used to construct and reinforce social realities. It focuses on the U.S. based public broadcasting service (PBS) and draws on a modified version of uses-and-gratifications theory to examine how people use news outlets and programs to establish confident social realities. People use PBS as a supplemental news provider and in ways that allow them to overcome the lack of trust they have towards the larger news media environment. As such, PBS’s news and public affairs programming serves as a news safety-net in that it’s used to ‘capture’ that which escapes the more porous commercialized news-net (Tuchman, 1978). This paper concludes by considering how using PBS in such ways speaks towards symbolic and media powers, and related issues of control and social change.
Introduction
Interactionists have long contended that people act based on the meanings they associate with symbols (Blumer, 1969). In this paperI demonstrate howpeople use the meanings they associate with different news outlets to build confidence in their social realities. These meanings may arise from current personal experiences, or they may also sprout from other, less direct avenues, such as a friend or from impressions rooted years earlier. In any event, these associated meanings serve as powerful cultural tools thatinformhow people engage with their cultural environments, and in ways that have implications for larger systems of power and control.
I rest my discussion on a qualitative, audience-centered study of news consumersthatI situate within a critical uses-and-gratifications theoretical framework. Doing so allows me to both respectthat people use news outlets to satisfy certain perceived needs or desires, and at the same time consider how their uses relate to larger systems of power and control. Many of those with whom I spoke usethe meanings they associate with U.S. based public broadcasting’s news programming[1](i.e.,Public Broadcasting Service or PBS) in ways that suggest it servesas a perceived news‘safety net.’ Active and engaged news consumers, or‘news fans,’ use PBS’s news programs to overcome the problems they note as endemic in commercialized, mainstream news media and ground their confidence in knowing and understanding the news-world.[2] I then draw on European developments in social theory (Thompson, 1995) and media sociology (Couldry, 2000a) to argue that using PBS in such ways indirectly sustains and reinforces the dominant, status quo powers that exercise substantial influence over the mainstream news media (McChesney, 2004)in the U.S.and what it catches in its news-net (Tuchman, 1978).
Method and Data
My argument is based on 47 semi-structured, qualitative interviews with people who voluntarily responded to an ad to participate in a research project on opinions of the news media. I posted ads in public places (e.g., coffee shops, telephone poles, shop windows) in several small to medium-sized cities and suburbs in the northeastern United States. Because of this self-selective recruitment mechanism, I spoke largely with people who both actively engaged with the news environment and wanted to talk about it. Accordingly I refer to them as ‘news fans.’ My participants’ engagement with the news media and eagerness to speak with me reflects their involvement in larger arenas of civil society (Alexander, 2006), so what they think and say about their ability to know and understand the world through the news media may in some ways reverberate in policies and broader social life.
Theoretical Framework
Critical Uses-and-Gratifications
Given its focus on people’s media use, this research resembles the scholarship on uses-and-gratifications (Katz, et al., 1973; McDonald, 1990; Rubin, 2002). Yet, it also differs in important ways, though in ways that demonstrateuseful theoretical modifications. Traditionally, uses-and-gratifications scholarship relied on surveys of broad populations and applied cluster and factor analyses as it sought to generalize about certain psychological needs that were often placed within a functionalist perspective (Blumer and Katz, 1974). Critical issues of power and control as they relate to broader social systems and institutions tended to be ignored. While there have been important developments to the theory since its hey-day in the 1970s (Rubin, 2002), uses-and-gratifications as a theoretical framework still lacks a critical branch. Its lack of a critical lens has been a consistent condemnation of uses-and-gratifications research for decades (Elliott, 1974). Yet, key practitioners take up the same response as do symbolic intereactionists who receive similar criticisms. They note that there is nothing inherent in the theory to suggest it cannot be applied critically. Instead, the criticism is more appropriately directed towards practitioners. Variants of this response and recognition that uses-and-gratifications theory may be applied critically also date back to the 1970s. In fact, McQuail and Gurevitch (1974: 293) draw from the critical work of Marcuse (1964) and De Fleur (1970) to provide two examples of how audiences may use media in ways that are‘functional’ for media producers and larger economic institutions, and indeed, averse to change.[3]
This paper deviates from traditionally psychological, functional, and quantitative applications, and instead reflects a critical, qualitative, reception-based framework. It is directly concerned with power and control, and examines how people’s media use, while perhaps satisfying psychological needs, may also satisfy the dominant interests that control highly unequal media and social systems. Towards these ends, I treat news outlets likePBS associal and cultural objects (Couldry, 2000b; Gleverac, 2005) that are used in different ways, for different reasons, and with implications for power, control, and social change. In so doing, this paper extends on the traditional uses-and-gratifications paradigm by demonstrating its utility in critical scholarship.
Knowing the World through News Media
I spoke with 47 people, and practically all of them were solidly confident in their knowledge and understanding of events and issues going on in the news-world. My respondents were able to establish this confidence despite voicing rather serious criticisms of the commercialized, mainstream news media in the U.S. and its ability to deliver information on the news-world. ‘Too sporadic,’‘repetitive,’‘superficial’ and ‘incomplete’ are a sample of the most common criticisms people voiced when asked to talk about commercial news media. For example,Dan, a retired financial executive in his upper 60s, said ‘[it’s] too fluffy…It’s not really news, it’s about some unique event that happened. There is no relationship about what is going on in the greater scheme of things.’ Kate, a small business owner in her mid-40s made a similar point about ‘fluff’ by which she meant ‘stories about a cat that needs to be adopted.’ Kate argued that the U.S. news media
are either not interested [in the news] or they are just trying to fill the time slot. They are
taking fluff stories and they are ok if it’s 5 percent of the news. But when you have half-n-
hour of a time slot and 15 minutes of that is news and the rest is fluff…Also, the opinions,
they are always giving an opinion on something.
Despite common criticisms like these, my respondents use the same news environment to ground their knowledge and understanding of the news-world. In this sense the news environment serves as a fundamental cultural resource upon which they draw to establish their news-confidence. More precisely, they use as tools the meaningsor impressions they hold of different news outlets as they critically engage with their news environment in ways that allow them to feel they’ve overcome their criticisms and have established confident and secure social realities of the news-world. Mike, a 59-year old West Point grad turned financial consultant, illustrates this point. He said,
[the truth] might be 60 percent here and 30 percent there and 80 percent of the truth is in the
30 percent...Everybody in the media is advocating a position…You have to work at being
informed and you have to have good filters…
The meanings people hold of different news outlets, or news-meanings, serve as indicators; they hint at how consumers should orient their engagement with the news media in both cognitive and physical ways as they go about establishing confidence in what they know of the news-world. Cognitively, news-fans like Mike rely on news-meanings to indicate how they should apply their ‘news-filters.’ That is, how to mentally process and interpret the information they consume from a given outlet that represents a particular ‘take’ on the news. Physically, news-fans rely on news-meanings to justify to themselves which outlets to frequent as consumers. Seon, a 40-something, highly successful business owner, illustrates this point. Regarding his news consumption habits, he said,
[T]hat is why you augment [your news consumption], eventually if you go this way or that
way you are going to end up intersecting major pockets of things that are going on. So a little
bit of NewsHour [i.e., The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS], look at The Wall Street
Journal, it’s the combination of people. I get the[NY] Times, I get CNNon my computer…If
there is stuff going on chances are I know about it. There’s no one source that’s going to do
it.
Both practices (cognitive and physical) apply the meanings that news-fans associate with news outlets as tools used to overcome news criticisms and confidently know about and understand the news-world (Ostertag, 2008). Sometimes these meanings are informed by actual consumption, and other times by reputation orrumor, though often some degree of both.
Recognized as a not-for-profit news provider, the meanings and impressions associated with PBS occupy a unique position among my respondents’ matrix of meaningful news outlets. My respondentscharacterize PBSas a news ‘safety net,’ a news provider that captures what escapes the commercial news-net. PBS isa place they can visit should they feel that traditional, mainstream and commercial news outlets endanger their ability to establish a grounded and secure sense of the news-world.
The News-Meanings of PBS
Most of the people with whom I spoke consume PBS news and public affairs programming along-side commercial news outlets. They explain that its utility as a news ‘safety net’ arises from its use as a supplement to the more traditional, commercialized, mainstream news media. Notice how in the following excerpt, Toby illustrates PBS’s news ‘safety-net’ role byemphasizing what slips through the more porous commercial news-net: ‘about 75 percent of what you get on PBS is not presented on network stations.’ When asked about combining PBS news with commercial news he responded by saying, ‘[i]f you’re willing to look for it you could probably get 100 percent.’
My respondents see public broadcasting as a balanced and thorough mainstream news outlet of the highest quality. They commented on public broadcasting’s trustworthiness, its fairness, lack of bias, and legitimacy as a news outlet. They compare public broadcasting withcommercialized outletsand use itto build confidence in what they see as accurately constituting the news-world. Take what Susan, a retired nurse, had to say about PBS, ‘I feel better when I’m listening to public radio or television. They are more legitimate…they say what they feel or find out to be true…I seem to trust their words more.’ She continued, ‘NPR and public television, I just feel more comfortable listening to what they are saying. The other stations always leave you feeling like you want more and you never get it.’ Ryan, an engineer in his mid-30s made a similar statement as he compared PBS news with news from other providers, ‘NewsHour[with Jim Lehrer]…I think it’s a fair depiction of the news…they visibly try to remain neutral…I think it’s pretty fair and balanced compared to other news media sources.’ Murphy, a social worker in his upper-30s, said the following as we sat in his office one morning, ‘They [The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer] have a tremendous luxury in that they can focus on just a few stories. They have an hour where they can go into depth. That allows them to bring in experts on all sides.’
My respondents commonly conceptualized public broadcasting as an oasis of truth and accuracy in a desert of commercialized, profit-driven, corporate news options. Its utility as a news ‘safety net’ is more evident when my respondents directly contrasted it to commercial news outlets. When asked how to ‘use’ public broadcasting in relation to other news and public affairs programming on commercial outlets the following example illustrates what was rather common. Using PBS’s The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer along with another news outlet to understand the news-world and ‘keep up to date with what’s going on,’ this person said,
USA Today, it gives you a short version [of a particular newsworthy event] and then allows
you to go digging. If there is a story you are interested in you can go to another media and
dig for it; thenthe NewsHour. If I were going to limit my time it would be with the
NewsHour and USA Today.
Many of those with whom I spoke claimed they use public broadcasting’s news services in relation to commercial news. Often they use PBS news as an extra news outlet; a supplemental news outlet used in addition tocommercialized news options. Doing so, they reasoned, allows them to capture the residual stories, content, and perspectives that are not captured by the commercial providers’ news-net (Tuchman, 1978).
A Liberal Bias?
Some of my respondents positioned public broadcasting as a liberal and ‘left’ news outlet. Most of those who did so cited the types of stories and contentPBSaddressed,not how those stories are covered. As such, their claims about PBS actually helped reinforce its role as a news ‘safety net.’ Henry, a lawyer in his 40s, nicely explains this phenomenon,
I’d say it [public broadcasting] probably is much less so [biased] than commercial
networks…I think it’s less of a political bias than a social bias. I think public radio and
television tends, from a social perspective, to present things more from…a liberal point of
view…[by which I mean] you’re more likely to see a documentary on alternative energy
sources on public television than you will see on any sort of privately owned station.
Susan makes a similar point as we discussed news coverage of Hurricane Katrina after the devastation of New Orleans. She said, ‘NPR was giving the humanistic side [of Katrina]…I didn’t see too much of that, just surface with commercial television.’
My respondents were able to appreciate PBS’s perceived professionalism and objectivity and still claim it as a liberal news provider because their notion of ‘liberalism’referred to the stories covered, and not, as Shawn, a freelance writer in his 60s stated,whether PBS ‘[had] an ax to grind.’ In fact, such an understanding of PBS’s news programming reinforces its role as a news ‘safety-net.’ This is because those who viewPBS as liberalrecognized its ‘liberalism’ in PBS’s attention to and coverageof stories not likely to be captured in the news-net of the commercialized, mainstream news media.
However, most of my respondents did not see public broadcasting as being overly liberal or left. For example, Philan urban art dealer in his upper 40s, stated, ‘I don’t recognize public television being to the left. I think they are a good, neutral place on television for what they present…I find they’re a good source for me.’ Likewise, Murphy had a similar view. Paying particular attention to one program,The McLaughlin Group, he stated,
The McLaughlin Group is the greatest show on TV. It’s entertaining and also educational.
These are very smart people talking about events in our country and their view points are so
diverse that I never feel I am watching a biased show like FOX News…I love its honesty.
They have a revolving table.
Worth noting here is that people need not consume actively and directly from a particular news outlet to find it meaningful and usefulas a resource. David, a 40-something urbanite,illustrated this point when he discussedPBS in relation to other news providers. He said, ‘I think they [PBS], in general are more concerned with providing a fair and balanced news program…I don’t really watch it a lot, I don’t tune into it…but I know where it is.’ Mike makes a similar point as he discussed PBS’s news with that on the major network stations. He said,
[T]he only news we watch on TV is the McNeil/Lehrer News Hour [now called The
NewsHour with Jim Lehrer]. The general news by ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and the talking